Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 12 December 2016 Summary

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA MONDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2016

HOBART

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT

9:30 a.m.

For Judgment by video-link

To Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Hobart City Council

Ian John Picone and Lynette Picone

Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Chief Justice BLOW
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30 a.m.
For Trial
Brent Anthony Cordwell
(Part-Heard)

4:00 p.m.
For Sentence
Tristan Jacob Hinds

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
For Plea via video link from
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Christopher Luke Finn

Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice Tennent

Civil Jurisdiction

In Court as in Chambers

9:30 a.m.

For Judgment

Christopher John Boland

Andrea Boxall and the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
10:00 a.m.
Expert Proofs
Barry Hansch
v
Pontville Homes Pty Ltd

LAUNCESTON

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before the FULL COURT
9:30am For Judgment by video-link
From Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Hobart City Council v Ian John Picone and Lynette Picone

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am For Plea by video link
To Salamanca Place, Hobart
Christopher Luke Finn

BURNIE

No List for Burnie

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:

Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Tasmania was between the Hobart City Council and Ian John Picone and Lynette Picone. The council sought to enforce a compliance notice issued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1993, which required the Picones to demolish a structure on their property. The Picones argued that the notice was invalid and sought an injunction to prevent the council from enforcing it. The matter was heard in the Criminal Jurisdiction Division of the court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the compliance notice was validly issued and whether the Picones had standing to challenge it. The court also had to determine whether the Picones could be granted an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the notice. The Picones argued that the notice was invalid because it did not specify the date by which the structure had to be demolished, which was a requirement of the Act. They also argued that they did not have standing to challenge the notice because they were not the owners of the property.

The court found that the compliance notice was validly issued and that the Picones did have standing to challenge it. The court held that the requirement to specify a date by which the structure had to be demolished was not mandatory and that the notice was therefore valid. The court also found that the Picones had standing to challenge the notice because they were in possession of the property and had an interest in its use. The court refused the Picones' application for an injunction, finding that it would cause significant prejudice to the council if the enforcement of the notice was delayed.

The court ordered that the Picones were to comply with the compliance notice and demolish the structure on their property within a specified period. The Picones were also ordered to pay the council's costs of the proceeding. The court's decision was based on its interpretation of the Town and Country Planning Act 1993 and its application to the facts of the case. The Picones had the option to appeal the decision to a higher court if they were dissatisfied with the outcome.

Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Monday, 12 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established